Monday, July 15, 2013

Irrefutable Arguments? Part 6

It’s time for “red flag” #6 from our atheist:

6)…100% FACT: we have nothing close to an original of any gospel book
(besides a single fragment from the 1st century and a dozen or so from the 2nd
century one has to around 200 AD before we get any real readings from the
gospels) …RED FLAG!!!!

There’s nothing here we haven’t covered in depth before. Many times we have
pointed out that this is an arbitrary setting of the bar to atmospheric heights
which would never be used by any historian or textual critic for works like
those of Tacitus and Josephus – for whom, we have no originals, and earliest
copies at a historical distance five times or more away from the origins,
compared to the Gospels. (E.g., Tacitus’ Annals, written in about 115 AD, have
no earlier copy than the ninth century.)

While we’re at this subject, I’d like to note a miscellaneous objection from
other sources, and ask for some feedback.

Yes, we know. We also know that Skeptics have been pointing this out for
years. We also know that we have yet to see a single Christian apologist
actually argue such a thing. I’m not saying they never have done so, just that
in 15+ years of seeing atheists hoist this one, I still have no idea who they
are talking to.

The feedback I’m asking for: Has anyone ever actually seen a Christian
apologist argue that textual reliability equals historical reliability? Note
that it is of course a prerequisite of historicity that a text be a reliable
report. I am not asking if any apologist has ever presented textual reliability
as a stage in establishing historical reliability. I am asking if they have
ever argued directly that textual reliability equals historical reliability.

If you know of such an apologist, I would like a name, and a reference for
where this was argued.